PSH-25-0139

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure under
5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: June 3, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0139
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 10, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.
I. Background
As part of the application process for an access authorization, the Individual completed, signed,
and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in June 2024. Exhibit (Ex.)
10.2 In the QNSP, the Individual disclosed that in approximately September 2019, he was charged
with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Open Container. Id. at 145. As part of the
investigation process, a copy of the Individual’s criminal record was obtained, which revealed that
the Individual was arrested and charged with the aforementioned criminal offenses in September
2020. Ex. 11 at 218.
The Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) conducted by an investigator in
August 2024. Id. at 158. During the ESI, the Individual disclosed that in early August 2024, while
employed by a DOE contractor, his supervisor told him that “someone reported that [he] smelled
of alcohol.” Id. Accordingly, the Individual was escorted to a different building and submitted to
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This Decision will refer
to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE.
2
an alcohol test, which registered positive for alcohol. Id. at 158–59. The Individual was “suspended
for two weeks without pay.” Id. at 159. In those two weeks, the Individual spoke to someone with
his employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and, at the recommendation of the EAP
representative, was evaluated by a mental health professional at a local recovery center prior to
returning to work. Id. at 159; Ex. 8 at 44. The Individual told the investigator that following the
evaluation, he was “told to take a [two-hour] alcohol education class.” Ex. 11 at 159; Ex. 8 at 44;
Ex. B. The Individual completed the class and returned to work in late August 2024. Ex. 11 at 159;
Ex. 6 at 24. The Individual was subsequently enrolled in a recovery and abstinence program in
September 2024, which required him to see “an EAP [c]ounselor twice per month[,]” for alcohol
counseling and to undergo random urine and breath alcohol tests. Ex. 6 at 24; Ex. 8 at 44.
The Individual was asked to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) at the behest of the Local
Security Office (LSO). Ex. 7. In his January 2025 response to the LOI, he answered questions
regarding his alcohol consumption. As questions still remained, the Individual was asked to
undergo a psychological evaluation conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE
Psychologist) in February 2025, who compiled a report (the Report) of his findings the same
month. Ex. 8. In conjunction with the psychological evaluation, the Individual submitted to a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which registered a result of 364 ng/mL.3 Id. at 56. The DOE
Psychologist concluded that the Individual “habitually and/or binge consum[ed] alcohol to the
point of impaired judgment[,]” without any evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 49.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information that created
a substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was
entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his
eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0139 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted two exhibits, marked Exhibits A and B. The DOE
Counsel submitted eleven exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 11 and presented the testimony
of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
Under Guideline G, “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
3 “PEth is a normal body metabolite” and “accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell membrane.” Ex. 8 at
56. PEth results “reflect[] the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28-30 days[.]” Id. The PEth test
results were interpreted by a consultant medical doctor, who determined that based on the results of the PEth test, 364
ng/mL, the Individual consumed about five alcoholic drinks per day in the month prior to the test. Id. at 57.
3
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,” “alcohol-related incidents
at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition,” and “habitual
or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgement, regardless of whether the
individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a)–(c). Under Guideline G, the LSO
alleged that:
1. The DOE Psychologist concluded in the Report that the Individual “habitually and/or binge
consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.” Ex. 1 at 4. The DOE Psychologist
also concluded that the Individual has not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Id.
2. In early August 2024, the Individual underwent an alcohol breath test at work, which was
positive and registered a result of .022. Id. He admitted in his January 2025 LOI that he
had consumed “a little more than a pint” of liquor “along with two [25-ounce] cans of beer
the night prior to [the] test.” Id.
3. The Individual was arrested and charged with DUI and Open Container in September 2020,
after he consumed “four or five shots of [liquor] and then proceeded to drive.” Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
4
The Individual confirmed in his LOI that when he had tested positive for alcohol while at work in
August 2024, the test had registered a result of .022. Ex. 7 at 30. He explained that the night before
he was tested at work, he had argued with his wife, causing him to drink “more than a pint of”
whiskey and two twenty-five-ounce cans of beer to reduce his stress. Id. He believed that enough
time would pass from the time of consumption to the time he reported to work “for the alcohol to
leave [his] system.” Id. at 31. The Individual was subsequently placed on probation by his
employer, and he anticipated being on probation until July 2026. Tr. at 18.
The Individual explained at the hearing that he was seeing the EAP counselor on a monthly basis
pursuant to the recovery and abstinence program.4 Tr. at 24. Further, he explained that the random
testing had been reduced from monthly to once per quarter. Id. The Individual stated that outside
of seeing an EAP therapist as required by the aforementioned program, he sought additional
counseling with another EAP therapist and attended three sessions with her. Id. at 11. Although he
had a fourth appointment scheduled, he failed to attend the appointment, and he has not seen her
since their third session. Id. He also indicated that he underwent a self-directed thirty-day “detox,”
during which he and his wife decided to exercise daily and abstain from alcohol. Id. at 11–12.
They started the “detox” on December 1, 2025, and ended the program on January 1, 2026. Id. at
12, 23. Although the Individual attended one Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting, he ultimately
decided that the meetings were inconvenient to attend and did not attend any other meetings. Id.
at 18.
He started consuming alcohol again after the December 2025 detox, and he last consumed alcohol
the weekend prior to the March 2026 hearing, consuming two sixteen-ounce beers.5 Id. He
explained that at the time of the hearing, he was consuming beer once or twice a week on the
weekends.6 Id. He explained that he typically consumes three or four beers in one sitting if he is
drinking at home, but that he consumes two or three beers if he is drinking elsewhere.7 Id. at 13.
He noted that his “triggers” include conflict and stress. Id. at 18. He has learned that exercise,
spending time with family, “yard work, working on cars,” and associating with individuals who
are a positive influence help him cope with his triggers. Id. at 19. He admitted that he experiences
cravings for alcohol, and that he last craved alcohol a month prior to the hearing. Id. at 20. He
explained that at the time he experienced that craving, he substituted alcohol with an energy drink.
4 At the time the DOE Psychologist evaluated the Individual, the Individual was in the first phase of the recovery and
abstinence program, which required two sessions per month with the EAP counselor and monthly random alcohol
testing. Ex. 8 at 46.
5 The Individual testified that he started drinking alcohol again when he celebrated the 2026 new year with his family.
Tr. at 23.
6 In the January 2025 LOI, he explained that he would typically consume two cans of beer and one ounce of liquor on
weekend nights. Ex. 7 at 33. This was a reduction from what he would drink around August 2024, which consisted of
a pint or more of liquor and three to four beers, between three to four times per week. Id. at 33–34. He told the DOE
Psychologist in February 2025 that he was consuming, on average, “three 1.5-ounce shots of whiskey on weekends[.]”
Ex. 8 at 45.
7 At the hearing, the Individual testified that he considers “two to three” alcoholic beverages at home to be “normal or
healthy drinking[.]” Tr. at 20.
5
Id. He testified that he was initially in denial regarding the problematic nature of his alcohol
consumption and clarified that after “going through this process and seeing where [he has come]
from[,]” he “can say [that he does] not” have a problem with alcohol.8 Id. at 21. In reaching this
conclusion, he indicated that he had reduced his alcohol consumption, improved his relationship
with his family, had more “drive,” and developed the ability to resist the temptation to pity himself
when faced with unfavorable circumstances. Id. at 22.
Since August 2024, the Individual had been subject to random urine and breath testing for alcohol.9
Tr. at 10; Ex. A. He testified that he last submitted to a urine and breath alcohol test at the end of
January 2026. Tr. at 10–11. Other than the random urine and breath tests, he has not submitted to
any other testing, like a PEth test. Id. at 11.
The DOE Psychologist’s Report contained an attached assessment of the Individual’s PEth test
results. Ex. 8 at 56. The assessment, which was conducted by a medical doctor, indicated that the
Individual’s PEth test results were past the threshold of “heavy drinking,” which is a PEth result
greater than 200 ng/mL. Id. Heavy drinking consists of “at least [four drinks per day] several [days
per week].” Id. The assessment indicated that the Individual’s result of 364 ng/mL was more
consistent with five drinks per day, and that a PEth of 253 ng/mL or higher is “at the threshold to
identify alcohol dependent persons who may need detox treatment.” Id. The medical doctor,
accordingly, concluded that the Individual was likely consuming more alcohol than the amount he
reported to the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 56–57. Based on this assessment, the DOE Psychologist
concluded that the Individual’s PEth test result provided “objective scientific evidence that he is
habitually and/or binge consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.” Id. at 49. He also
concluded that the results provided “evidence that [the Individual] was not honest in his self-
report” regarding his average alcohol consumption. Id.
The DOE Psychologist concluded that in order for the Individual to show adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation, he should “participate in an intensive outpatient rehabilitation
program (IOP)” that consists of “nine hours of therapeutic and educational meetings a week . . .
for between [twelve] and [sixteen] weeks.” Id. The IOP should have group and individual therapy
components, and upon the completion of the IOP, the Individual “should continue in weekly
aftercare meetings for twelve . . . months.” Id. at 49–50. His abstinence should be evidenced by
monthly PEth testing for twelve months. Id. at 50. In the alternative, to show either rehabilitation
or reformation, the Individual should attend AA for twelve months, documenting his attendance
of four meetings per week, engage a sponsor, work through the Twelve Steps, and abstain from
alcohol. Id. If the Individual chose to pursue the second option, the DOE Psychologist
recommended that his abstinence should be evidenced by monthly PEth testing for twenty-four
months. Id.
The DOE Psychologist testified that he is troubled by the fact that the Individual has continued to
consume alcohol, as the Individual’s PEth test result was high. Id. at 31–32, 34. The DOE
8 In later testimony, the Individual described himself as previously being a “functioning alcoholic.” Tr. at 26–27.
9 The Individual did not submit test results after July 2025, despite being subject to random testing past July 2025. Tr.
at 10. He credibly testified that none of the random tests to which he has submitted have registered a positive result.
Id. at 18.
6
Psychologist explained that the Individual, who described himself during the hearing to have
previously been a functioning alcoholic, would generally “be classified as alcohol dependent.” Id.
at 36. Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist would have liked to have seen the Individual engage in
one year of continuing abstinence.10 Id. The DOE Psychologist also would have also liked the
Individual to participate in an IOP. Id. He explained that abstinence and recovery is easier when
one is involved with a group of people with the same goals. Id. at 37–38. Although the DOE
Psychologist did note that the Individual has a desire to “to improve his life” and is “concerned
about his family,” based on the evidence in the record and the testimony, the DOE Psychologist
did not find adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 40.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
The record reveals that the Individual has had a history of negative involvement in alcohol since
at least 2020. In September 2020, he was charged with alcohol-related crimes, and as recently as
August 2024, he violated the terms and conditions of his employment when he tested positive for
alcohol following a breath test at work. More recently, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the
Individual habitually and/or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, and the
Individual himself admitted to consuming a pint or more of liquor in a sitting. While the record
contains negative breath and urine tests, and the Individual testified that he has learned how to
avoid triggers and substitute alcohol with a different, non-alcoholic beverage when he experiences
cravings, the Individual testified that he nonetheless continues to consume alcohol. Accordingly,
I cannot conclude that the aforementioned efforts render any meaningful results to reduce or
10 The DOE Psychologist noted that he is familiar with the recovery and abstinence program in which the Individual
has been required to participate, and he stated that the program requires abstinence. Tr. at 36–37.
7
eliminate his alcohol consumption. I am also concerned by the fact that the Individual believes that
he does not currently have a problem with alcohol when he continues to give in to his desire to
consume alcohol, despite the fact that his employer is monitoring his alcohol use via random
testing. This ongoing behavior casts doubt on his ability or willingness to comply with rules.
Considering the Individual’s history of alcohol misuse under routine circumstances and that he
continues to consume alcohol in and outside of his home, I cannot conclude that enough time has
passed or that the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances
that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the Individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, or judgment. The fact that the Individual continues to consume alcohol,
irrespective of the ongoing alcohol monitoring conducted by his employer, suggests very strongly
that the Individual continues to exercise poor judgment. The Individual has failed to mitigate the
stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
Although the Individual identified himself as previously being a “functioning alcoholic,” he never
explicitly indicated any understanding that his alcohol consumption is maladaptive. In fact, he
testified that he does not believe that he currently has a problem with alcohol. Furthermore, the
Individual has not stopped consuming alcohol, which is inconsistent with the DOE Psychologist’s
recommendations. Accordingly, the Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant
to mitigating factor (b).
As the Individual has not participated in a treatment program of the sort recommended by the DOE
Psychologist, mitigating factors (c) and (d) are not applicable.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable and
the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the Guideline G concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not
demonstrated that granting his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and
security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals